Posted by bistiza on 2/26/2013 2:03:00 PM (view original):Your propaganda doesn't make you any more right or me any more wrong, and let's face it, that's all you ever offer, dahs.

Your statements seem to indicate you are fairly intelligent, yet you don't seem to be able to provide anything else but that propaganda. I'd think you'd realize how flawed your logic is, but I suspect you may be distracted by your frustration at me for refusing to accept all of your "evidence" that I'm supposedly wrong to believe neither theory is convincingly correct.

Posted by bistiza on 2/26/2013 2:03:00 PM (view original):Your propaganda doesn't make you any more right or me any more wrong, and let's face it, that's all you ever offer, dahs.

Your statements seem to indicate you are fairly intelligent, yet you don't seem to be able to provide anything else but that propaganda. I'd think you'd realize how flawed your logic is, but I suspect you may be distracted by your frustration at me for refusing to accept all of your "evidence" that I'm supposedly wrong to believe neither theory is convincingly correct.

Propaganda? I've offered FAR more evidence on this subject than you have. How is your spewing of nonsensical young earth gibberish anything but propaganda?

Let me clarify - I don't believe that the scientifically accepted age of the earth is correct because everyone thinks it is. I believe everyone thinks it is because that is correct. Young Earth theorists don't even agree on the age of the earth. Virtually all of the evidence goes along the lines of "the Earth can't be older than x because of y. But almost none of these arguments come with an actual age. If the science were so sound, couldn't they give me a number? I've always been told that if you want people to listen to you in science, you have to give them a number whenever possible. Vague, handwavy arguments tend to accompany poorly flushed-out or partially understood theories. Think about the arguments you made, before you realized they failed to hold water and took them down. "In an old earth, there should be no carbon 14." First of all, bullshit, it's constantly renewed in the upper atmosphere, which I'm sure you have since figured out after I immediately pointed it out after you posted that. But second, that's just a critique of the existing theory, it doesn't offer any insight into an actual age. Same with the "closely packed strata of earth" argument. I've never seen a theory that held any water at all, even something good enough to sound intelligent to a bachelor's-level scientist with any critical thinking skills, that offered a concrete age for the earth in the thousands or millions of years. Sure, they existed a century ago. But not now, with all the scientific knowledge we now have. The lack of a number should be telling in and of itself.

The age of the earth has been estimated to very much the same number - 4.5 billion years - by multiple methods. The most accurate is radiometric dating, but the best models of the Earth's cooling come up with a very similar number. Biologists have argued that the rate of apparent evolution requires life to have been developing for at least 3.5 billion years.

Propaganda? I've offered FAR more evidence on this subject than you have. How is your spewing of nonsensical young earth gibberish anything but propaganda?

Clearly you don't understand propaganda.

I'll offer a very simple explanation and do no more because I'm not wasting any more time on it:

What you have done is use a form of propaganda commonly known as the "bandwagon" argument, which is essentially where you say "everyone agrees on (whatever) the same as I do"

This is a logical fallacy as the number of people who agree on something has nothing to do with its status as being "right" or "wrong".

You are also fond of using propaganda known as the "appeal to authority" which is essentially where you say "these scientists (or whomever) think like I do and we agree on (whatever)".

This is also a logical fallacy as whoever you are appealing to isn't any more infallible than you are.

I don't believe that the scientifically accepted age of the earth is correct because everyone thinks it is. I believe everyone thinks it is because that is correct.

Wonderful. Now you're using a technique called the "circular argument" wherein the conclusion is used as a part of the argument, i.e. this theory on the age of the earth is correct because everyone thinks it is, and that's because it's correct.

If you can't see the logical fallacy in that, nothing is going to help you understand any of the others you're fond of.

Young Earth theorists don't even agree on the age of the earth.

There are a lot of things all scientists don't agree on - that doesn't make them right or wrong. That's why we have multiple theories for many scientific phenomena.

Think about the arguments you made, before you realized they failed to hold water and took them down.

The arguments still hold water. They aren't there because I don't wish to engage in a debate with BL.

Biologists have argued that the rate of apparent evolution requires life to have been developing for at least 3.5 billion years.

The theory of evolution is flawed in and of itself, so it can't serve as a accurate barometer for another theory.

Compared with theories deserving of acceptance as legit, it's so full of holes it might as well be Swiss cheese. Many of those holes involve the theory of evolution's inability to explain many of our abilities as **** sapiens - things like self-awareness and speech - which aren't present in other species.

But then, I'm not here to debate these things. I'm just offering some food for thought.

The age of the earth has been estimated to very much the same number - 4.5 billion years - by multiple methods. The most accurate is radiometric dating, but the best models of the Earth's cooling come up with a very similar number. Biologists have argued that the rate of apparent evolution requires life to have been developing for at least 3.5 billion years.

I believe part of bistiza's counter-argument to this is that unless you know personally how to perform radiometric dating and have done it yourself, that you're just trusting others who claim to understand and perform it; that they know what they're doing and are telling the truth about their findings.

In other words, you should doubt anything that you don't fully understand or can prove yourself.

Propaganda? I've offered FAR more evidence on this subject than you have. How is your spewing of nonsensical young earth gibberish anything but propaganda?

Clearly you don't understand propaganda.

I'll offer a very simple explanation and do no more because I'm not wasting any more time on it:

What you have done is use a form of propaganda commonly known as the "bandwagon" argument, which is essentially where you say "everyone agrees on (whatever) the same as I do"

This is a logical fallacy as the number of people who agree on something has nothing to do with its status as being "right" or "wrong".

You are also fond of using propaganda known as the "appeal to authority" which is essentially where you say "these scientists (or whomever) think like I do and we agree on (whatever)".

This is also a logical fallacy as whoever you are appealing to isn't any more infallible than you are.

I don't believe that the scientifically accepted age of the earth is correct because everyone thinks it is. I believe everyone thinks it is because that is correct.

Wonderful. Now you're using a technique called the "circular argument" wherein the conclusion is used as a part of the argument, i.e. this theory on the age of the earth is correct because everyone thinks it is, and that's because it's correct.

If you can't see the logical fallacy in that, nothing is going to help you understand any of the others you're fond of.

Young Earth theorists don't even agree on the age of the earth.

There are a lot of things all scientists don't agree on - that doesn't make them right or wrong. That's why we have multiple theories for many scientific phenomena.

Think about the arguments you made, before you realized they failed to hold water and took them down.

The arguments still hold water. They aren't there because I don't wish to engage in a debate with BL.

Biologists have argued that the rate of apparent evolution requires life to have been developing for at least 3.5 billion years.

The theory of evolution is flawed in and of itself, so it can't serve as a accurate barometer for another theory.

Compared with theories deserving of acceptance as legit, it's so full of holes it might as well be Swiss cheese. Many of those holes involve the theory of evolution's inability to explain many of our abilities as **** sapiens - things like self-awareness and speech - which aren't present in other species.

But then, I'm not here to debate these things. I'm just offering some food for thought.

Age of the earth calculations have been done by many qualified scientists, many times. There's a huge incentive to be the scientist that discovers something new or disproves an existing theory. Yet all of science agrees that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This calculation is either a massive conspiracy or the right answer.

If you have evidence that the earth is in fact 10,000 years old, feel free. You may also want to attach your real name so that you can reap the rewards of your new discovery.